The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PoliticalChic]

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true.

You don't conform to basic integrity. Accusing others of demagoguery whilst you openly engage in slander is a level of hypocrisy you embrace.

The irony of it is amusing.

But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

I'm sure that you felt the random mixture of phases would appear erudite; sadly you have once again communicated nothing at all.

My apologies to Mr. Petty.

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of vicious personal attack.

The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

No.

.

FINALLY, she retracts her previous insistence and thus admits she was wrong.

Whew, I should have been a dentist.

I did no such thing, NYLiar.....

From the OP:
OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire'comment.

If there are "acceptable limits" then there really is no such thing as Free Speech here, so what are you worried about?

And those "acceptable limits" would apply to all other rights then, so, onward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

No.

.

FINALLY, she retracts her previous insistence and thus admits she was wrong.

Whew, I should have been a dentist.

I did no such thing, NYLiar.....

From the OP:
OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire'comment.

If there are "acceptable limits" then there really is no such thing as Free Speech here, so what are you worried about?

And those "acceptable limits" would apply to all other rights then, so, onward.

Democrats are the motivating force behind inordinate, unrequired, unlawful restrictions on free speech.

And, you've helped me prove it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

No.

.

FINALLY, she retracts her previous insistence and thus admits she was wrong.

Whew, I should have been a dentist.

I did no such thing, NYLiar.....

From the OP:
OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire'comment.

If there are "acceptable limits" then there really is no such thing as Free Speech here, so what are you worried about?

And those "acceptable limits" would apply to all other rights then, so, onward.

Democrats are the motivating force behind inordinate, unrequired, unlawful restrictions on free speech.

And, you've helped me prove it.

I have? I'm against nearly all restrictions. Try again.

And as long as you are okay with restrictions, then you really don't support Free Speech at all, just the kind you approve of.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. OK....so....is the right of free speech an absolute, as suggested in "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

No.

.

FINALLY, she retracts her previous insistence and thus admits she was wrong.

Whew, I should have been a dentist.

I did no such thing, NYLiar.....

From the OP:
OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire'comment.

If there are "acceptable limits" then there really is no such thing as Free Speech here, so what are you worried about?

And those "acceptable limits" would apply to all other rights then, so, onward.

And, you've helped me prove it.

I have? I'm against nearly all restrictions. Try again.

And as long as you are okay with restrictions, then you really don't support Free Speech at all, just the kind you approve of.

The test for said limitations would begin with Holmes' argument, and would obviate the totalitarian aims of the Democrats named in the thread.


Democrats are the motivating force behind inordinate, unrequired, unlawful restrictions on free speech.
Proven by the fact that none of you drones have argued in favor of the Democrat examples that I've given.

As shown in the thread, Democrats are all about preventing speech that disagrees with their aspirations.
But Democrat Holmes found this reason applicable: the life and safety of individuals in that non-burning theatre.


Let's proceed with the exposition:


9. There is an area in which restrictions on speech is well founded, speech which results in violence against others.

But the Supreme Court has formulated a test which incorporates this restriction with the eventuality of violence against individuals.

The Brandenburg Test, 1969

"Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

The court ruled that Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Brandenburg v. Ohio The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So the danger could not be in the abstract....it must be a probably conclusion to the speech.

" The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)..." Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Notice: this is not the anti-Constitution bias of Democrats, the restrictions that impinge upon political speech, or name calling, or the nonsense called 'hate speech.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you even read the OP? Do you even see what she is claiming?

If so, then tell us in your own words what she claimed.

She is claiming that you fascist democrats are at war with the 1st Amendment - which is irrefutable fact. That the Obama administration seeks to deny civil rights to the public at large cannot be denied.

You sought to use child pornography as a red herring to distract from the fact that your party is engaged in open war to end civil rights. If you want to know WHY child pornography is not protected as free speech, then follow the link I've provided and read what the court wrote.

Otherwise, we return to the assault this administration and the fascist democratic party are waging on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

I posted the child porn court case asshole. Learn to read.

The OP based her cockeyed argument on a false premise that I proved false. Once the premise is proven false, the argument is over. She lost.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true.

You don't conform to basic integrity. Accusing others of demagoguery whilst you openly engage in slander is a level of hypocrisy you embrace.

The irony of it is amusing.

But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

I'm sure that you felt the random mixture of phases would appear erudite; sadly you have once again communicated nothing at all.

My apologies to Mr. Petty.

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of vicious personal attack.

The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

To further your research, apply the "Hillary Corollary" and the "Obama Equation".

 

[NYcarbineer]

I noticed that all our Liberal/Progressive/Democrat pals are deathly silent about

1. ...a Democrat Congressman suing to keep some group from advertising that his vote authorized funds for abortion....
none of the Leftists defending him???

2. ....Democrats Reid and Markey want 'hate speech' legislation ...causes of offense are "gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

In other words, anything.
....none of the Leftists penning posts in favor of same???

3. ....and Democrat LBJ, the 'father of illegitimacy,' made it illegal for churches to engage in political speech.
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


Where is all that vaunted Leftist 'critical thinking'????

1. You want to deny Democratic Congressmen the right to sue?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Notice: this is not the anti-Constitution bias of Democrats, the restrictions that impinge upon political speech, or name calling, or the nonsense called 'hate speech.'

I don't believe in really any restrictions on Free Speech because I'm a Liberal. I can't help you, but I can tell you that you believe in more restrictions than I do, without question. So while you may think that the Dems are the evil ones this way, they aren't. I have millions of people in this country who would ban Islam in a heartbeat, and they are all as wrong as you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't conform to your narrow template of political appropriateness, it's true.

You don't conform to basic integrity. Accusing others of demagoguery whilst you openly engage in slander is a level of hypocrisy you embrace.

The irony of it is amusing.

But to assume that those who fail to erode down to such a restrictive pattern of political ideology are foolish betrays a chauvinism rarely seen outside dive bars, trailer parks and Special Education busses.

I'm sure that you felt the random mixture of phases would appear erudite; sadly you have once again communicated nothing at all.

My apologies to Mr. Petty.

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of vicious personal attack.

The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

To further your research, apply the "Hillary Corollary" and the "Obama Equation".

A casual perusal of said data would conclude that Liberal person attacks on physical attributes far outdistances same in the other two cases.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Reason? Believing that "Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation..." is nothing like reason. It's like something a stupid child would say, ergo.

Capitalism is the most powerful force in the nation. Bad movies and politically active actors are just a small part of that. That's what reason looks like.

As I said, reason is not a concept that you have familiarity with. Capitalism openly bows to the power of Hollywood - note all the product placement, direct and indirect advertising in Hollywood productions?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Reason? Believing that "Hollywood is the most powerful force in the nation..." is nothing like reason. It's like something a stupid child would say, ergo.

Capitalism is the most powerful force in the nation. Bad movies and politically active actors are just a small part of that. That's what reason looks like.

As I said, reason is not a concept that you have familiarity with. Capitalism openly bows to the power of Hollywood - note all the product placement, direct and indirect advertising in Hollywood productions?

They aren't bowing, they're selling. They don't make ads for the Super Bowl because they love football. What they love are customers and a captive audience. You have the tires installed on the roof and can't understand why the car won't go down the road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I noticed that all our Liberal/Progressive/Democrat pals are deathly silent about

1. ...a Democrat Congressman suing to keep some group from advertising that his vote authorized funds for abortion....
none of the Leftists defending him???

2. ....Democrats Reid and Markey want 'hate speech' legislation ...causes of offense are "gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

In other words, anything.
....none of the Leftists penning posts in favor of same???

3. ....and Democrat LBJ, the 'father of illegitimacy,' made it illegal for churches to engage in political speech.
Where are all the Leftist posts supporting this unconstitutional power grab???


Where is all that vaunted Leftist 'critical thinking'????

3. The Johnson Amendment was challenged in court and the challenge lost.

 

[Moonglow]

There's always a scapegoat, isn't there? Why didn't the far right candidates do as well as Romney in the primaries? Because they titillated the GOP rabid base while frightening the GOP majority. So, the rabid GOP base, constantly looking for someone else to blame, fell back on their favorite scapegoat: The Left.

I have no more say in who the GOP runs than you do. The party left me in 1988.

What the GOP has is a bad case of inferiority complex. The democrat controlled press tells them that if they don't run left of center losers like Romney then Matt Damon and George Clooney won't like them and will say mean things about them.

The Republicans appear to be too stupid to grasp that Matt Damon and George Clooney will spew hatred at them regardless of what they do. Disenfranchising the base to please the Hollywood left is a recipe for failure - but one the democrats can always get the Republicans to follow.

If the GOP sees itself as inferior and so malleable that those without political power in Hollywood can control the nominating process, why should Americans subscribe to the GOP?

Sounds to me that the GOP is molding itself after the Democratic party....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hard to fathom. Hollywood as the most powerful force in this nation. One would think churches might be more powerful.

Is that a joke? Churches?

Let's test your theory:

Churches claim that out of wedlock sex is a sin and should not be engaged in.

Hollywood since the 50's have promoted unwed sex as the goal every child strives for.

So, have the churches prevailed? Is unwed sex practically unheard of, or are 6th graders throwing orgies like they saw last night on TV?

Churches teach that a baby must be born to a mother and a father who are married and who will raise the child in an environment of the family embrace.

Hollywood teaches that women who have children out of wedlock are brave and that men really are just abusive molesters who endanger children..

So, since 1950, have the number of out of wedlock children plummeted to the point of non-existence? Or risen thousands of percent, to the point that 9 out of 10 black children are born to a single mother, and 6 out of 10 white children?

So, who influences the direction of our culture? The churches?

National political organizations such as the NRA might be more powerful than a sitcom. But if a scapegoat has to be found (and a scapegoat is always preferable to a palatable political idea for Conservatives) Hollywood will suffice.

Facts of course demonstrate the opposite of your claims We can breakdown the influnce of Hollywood versus the NRA as easily as I broke down your lie about the influence of churches...

 

[Moonglow]

In the 1950's you had twin beds for the adults...

 

[Uncensored2008]

My apologies to Mr. Petty.

Ohhh how very clever you are libeling and slandering those who your party tells you to hate...

Tell us again about demagogues, would you Herr Goebbels?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Coulter is a comedian, but you guys don't get the joke. And she was right about Romney. You ran him and you lost.

Romney was the choice of the left for the GOP to run. Now you demand the GOP run Jeb Bush.

If they listen to you again, they deserve to lose.

Romney is a Plutocrat, no one on the left or center wants that. The far left, left, and center left had no influence on Romney's nomination, if the GOP has any sense that would have put up Jon Huntsman as Standard Bearer.

And,

If the GOP were wise, they wouldn't have Iowa as the first state to have a primary election. Iowa's demographic is split, btween Social Conservative and Democrat and the Magic Christians will always pick the craziest one of the bunch (a comment on Rick Santorum)

 

[Uncensored2008]

I posted the child porn court case asshole. Learn to read.

The OP based her cockeyed argument on a false premise that I proved false. Once the premise is proven false, the argument is over. She lost.

Again, you have in a very clumsy manner, engaged in the logical fallacy of a red herring. You attempt to derail legitimate criticism of your filthy party by tossing our unrelated topics.

You are an idiot, in short.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I posted the child porn court case asshole. Learn to read.

The OP based her cockeyed argument on a false premise that I proved false. Once the premise is proven false, the argument is over. She lost.

Again, you have in a very clumsy manner, engaged in the logical fallacy of a red herring. You attempt to derail legitimate criticism of your filthy party by tossing our unrelated topics.

You are an idiot, in short.

The OP never mentioned a single example of what she was accusing Democrats of doing in her first post,

so I merely defeated the claims that were there.